The main legal point established in the judgment is that a second application on the same facts and cause of action is not maintainable, and the court may dismiss such applications. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules in force at the commencement of the selection process.

( 1 ) IN 1971 the petitioner was appointed as a Beldar and was promoted as a Store Attendant in 1977. In 1991, the petitioner was promoted as a Tube-well Operator. The petitioner filed Civil misc. Writ Petition 1710 of 1986 before this Court, praying that he was entitled to be promoted as a Junior Engineer on the basis of a Government order dated 3. 1. 1985, which contemplated that the promotion to the post of Junior Engineer would be on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. This court by judgment dated 27. 11. 1992 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner, if he was entitled for the promotion on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. Even though, this Court directed the respondents to decide the matter within one month from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. The respondents by an order dated 16. 2. 1993 rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had not completed ten years of service as contemplated under the U. P. Irrigation department Mechanical Engineers [subordinate] Services Rules 1992 which was promulgated w. e. f. 7. 1. 1993.

( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by the order of the respondent dated 16. 2. 1993, the petitioner filed a Misc. Application in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1710 of 1986 praying that the order dated 16. 2. 1993 be set aside and the respondents be directed to promote the petitioner on the basis of the Rules of 1985 i. e. on the basis of seniority subject to the rejection of unfit. This misc. application was filed on the basis of a decision of this court in Jitendra Pal v. Committee of Management, 1993 [1] UPLBEC 218, which permitted the maintainability of a miscellaneous application being filed in appropriate cases even after the disposal of the writ petition. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the application was allowed by an order dated 16. 4. 1993, whereby the Court modified its earlier judgment dated 16. 4. 1993 which is quoted hereunder:

"despite order of this Court dated 24. 3. 1993, no counter affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances of the case, I modify my judgment and direct that the petitioner will be promoted as Junior Engineer, Irrigation within a month from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. "

It transpires that the respondents did not comply with the order dated 16. 4. 1993 and did not promote the petitioner to the post of Junior Engineer. Consequently, contempt proceedings were initiated against the respondents and by an order dated 11. 3. 1996, the respondents were directed to pay the salary of the Junior Engineer, which would be subject to the decision in special appeal. It further transpires that the respondents had filed special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1710 of 1986. Initially, the special leave petition was dismissed by a judgment dated 1. 10. 1996 as being belatedly barred by time, against which, the respondents filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was allowed by a judgment dated 20. 3. 1998 and the matter was remanded back to the high Court to decide the special appeal afresh. This Court by a judgment dated 19. 5. 2004 allowed the special appeal and quashed the order dated 16. 4. 1993. This Court held that the petitioners misc. application was not maintainable and that the learned Single judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the misc. application of the petitioner as no proceedings were pending before the Court at that moment of time. The Court further held that the order dated 16. 4. 1993 directing the promotion of the petitioner could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Against the judgment dated 19. 5. 2004, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition which was dismissed by the Supreme court by judgment dated 5. 11. 2004. By another ord